Poverty Can Trump a Winning Hand of Genes

Changes in our environment can actually transform the relation between our traits and the outside world.

By

Alison Gopnik

Sept. 20, 2013 8:16 p.m. ET

We all notice that some people are smarter than others. You might naturally wonder how much these differences in intelligence depend on genes or upbringing. But that question, it turns out, is impossible to answer.

That's because changes in our environment can actually transform the relationship among our traits, our upbringing and our genes.

ENLARGE

Justin Renteria

The textbook illustration of this is a dreadful disease called PKU. Some babies have a genetic mutation that makes them unable to process an amino acid in their food, and it leads to severe mental retardation. For centuries, PKU was incurable. Genetics determined whether someone suffered from the syndrome, which gave them a low IQ.

Then scientists discovered how PKU works. Now, we can immediately put babies with the mutation on a special diet. Whether a baby with PKU has a low IQ is now determined by the food they eat—by their environment.

We humans can figure out how our environment works and act to change it, as we did with PKU. So if you're trying to measure the relative influence of human nature and nurture, you have to consider not just the current environment but also all the possible environments that we can create.

This doesn't just apply to obscure diseases. In the latest issue of Psychological Science,
Timothy C. Bates
of the University of Edinburgh and colleagues report a study of the relationship among genes, SES (socio-economic status, or how rich and educated you are) and IQ. They used statistics to analyze the differences between identical twins, who share all DNA, and fraternal twins, who share only some.

When psychologists first started studying twins, they found identical twins much more likely to have similar IQs than fraternal ones. They concluded that IQ was highly "heritable"—that is, due to genetic differences. But those were all high SES twins.
Erik Turkheimer
of the University of Virginia and his colleagues discovered that the picture was very different for poor, low-SES twins. For these children, there was very little difference between identical and fraternal twins: IQ was hardly heritable at all. Differences in the environment, like whether you lucked out with a good teacher, seemed to be much more important.

In the new study, the Bates team found this was even true when those children grew up. IQ was much less heritable for people who had grown up poor. This might seem paradoxical: After all, your DNA stays the same no matter how you are raised. The explanation is that IQ is influenced by education. Historically, absolute IQ scores have risen substantially as we've changed our environment so that more people go to school longer.

Richer children have similarly good educational opportunities, so genetic differences among them become more apparent. And since richer children have more educational choice, they (or their parents) can choose environments that accentuate and amplify their particular skills. A child who has genetic abilities that make her just slightly better at math may be more likely to take a math class, so she becomes even better at math.

But for poor children, haphazard differences in educational opportunity swamp genetic differences. Ending up in a terrible school or one a bit better can make a big difference. And poor children have fewer opportunities to tailor their education to their particular strengths.

How your genes shape your intelligence depends on whether you live in a world with no schooling at all, a world where you need good luck to get a good education or a world with rich educational possibilities. If we could change the world for the PKU babies, we can change it for the next generation of poor children, too.

This article only reinforces the material in Richard Lewontin's book The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. After reading this article and the book, one must be careful at reading too much into the gene ... or too little.

Attention to intelligence of blacks tends to set off sparks, but examined lineage by lineage the case for inherited intelligence potential seems strong, just as it does for whites and Orientals. When last I looked that potential appeared lower for blacks, within the U.S., and I doubt that has changed.

There are problems with that from the git-go. Within Africa, intelligence by identifiable population group varies greatly. One line of analysis holds that the original stock of "humans" has become more diverse over time, with a limited number of major migrations creating a common genetic baseline for each. This automatically creates reduced diversity within each emigrant group than among the original stock. In this view, greater variability in intelligence and other characteristics (more better, and more worse) is simply to be expected for blacks, as they are the original stock who stayed and diversified in place. This is off-set at the high end to some extent by the likelihood that the more intelligent and more able are more likely to survive the hardships of emigration and the lesser more likely to be culled by death.

Add to that, blacks brought to the U.S. were not chosen for high intelligence. Ability of other Africans to capture them and control them well enough to get them to a port and aboard ship was a big factor. Fortitude and strength were visible factors worth money and independent attitude generally was not. Most intelligent and most independent was not a good combination for easy capture nor for high monetary value.

Once in North America, blood lines tended to mix, both among different black groups and between black and white. That has complicated things to the point it is difficult and perhaps impossible in many cases to look at history and assess present circumstances for individuals or identificable groups. The assessment of a large group may be possible, statistically, but going from that to decisions on small groups and specific individuals is fraught with hazard for error, more so than among the more homogenous groups.

A wider range of potential within an easily identifiable population of somewhat lower potential overall is quite troublesome to deal with. Government-mandated measures to do so from LBJ's Great Society onward seem to have worsened matters for blacks, though, rather than improve them. Many black individuals have moved up in socio-eocnomic status, but more have degraded and appear less able and less motivated to focus on advancement by one's own efforts. This does not augur well, as self-advancement is in reality the only reliable form of advancement.

That can be malnourishment due to either lack of food available or inability to select, prepare, and consume the foods needed. That can include lack of opportunity and encouragement to attain whatever is possible. That can and indeed does include all physical factors and cultural factors that define the "context" in which one lives.

And if the genetics make the upper limits low, all sorts of efforts will not make the upper limits high.

One may also note that lessons learned on how to improve prospects for those of low ability not uncommonly may be applied to even greater effect for those of high ability, making the gap between the low-ability and the high-ability greater rather than smaller, though the low-ability will be higher-ability than previously would have been the case.

The author's unstated assumption is that an IQ test objectively measures intrinsic intelligence.

Okay, sure, someone with an IQ of 78 , growing up in any environment, is going to grow up to be on the low side of the intelligence average on any IQ test.

I would suggest however, that IQ tests measure what you have learned,Ergo, the better your education, the higher your IQ.

Once you get beyond the assumption that an IQ test is an objective, measure of intelligence on anything other than the grossest scale, it is easy to see that a lot of this research is rubbish. All of the studies regarding the nature-nurture issue that are based on "an IQ test" are junk science because the IQ test does not objectively measure the "nature" of intrinsic intelligence. The IQ test is vastly skewed by "Nurture" (i.e., your education - in school, at home by parents)

However, I do agree with the author's conclusion that the poor need to have the freedom to choose; freedom to move their children out of crappy public schools and into private schools.

So I agree with the authors implied conclusion that school vouchers are a good solution.

I would even go so far as to say school vouchers are a human right. No organization (Unions) should have the ability to exploit the poor because it might harm their income and break their monopoly.

One big reason Finnish students are the best in the world, child poverty rate below 5%.One big reason US trails most of the developed world - child poverty rate 25%.Want to improve US schools, end childhood poverty.

Nature and nurture have a big effect, but they aren't everything. Personal values and motivation can improve a lot on what we were born with, and how we were nurtured (or not). E.g., the poor kid can pick up books and read them, which then gives him contact with some of the best teachers throughout history.

Totally unspoken in this article, and the research, is that by requiring an advanced diet, this mutation is a genetic control mechanism. And despite being carefully developed and purposely validated over the course of a billion years, 'enlightened' human beings are willfully and shortsightedly short-circuiting it (and other veritable genetic conditions).

So I guess the modern progressive interpretation of genetics is that we should screw around with nature and impose our will on it. Funny how we doing that with CO2 emissions is bad....

Sorry, Andrew. I didn't presume to have found the answer that has eluded us all for decades, only to make the point that the intellectual elite want to put so fine a point on things as to make the point meaningless, when the most basic and essential issues go wanting, without criticism from the government or, these days, even society.

It has always been true, and I hope it remains true indefinitely, that the single most important factor in how much a child learns is to have loving, caring parents who protect and nurture and encourage their child to value the importance of learning. Sadly, most of the opportunity to affect that is gone by age 4 or 5. It is hard to change behaviors after that point.

Good teachers can play a role, but it is very limited. I had a great geometry teacher in 10th grade, and an equally miserable history teacher that same year. Did I learn more geometry than I did history? Certainly. Did how much geometry I learned vs. how much history I learned that year end up making a difference? None that I can tell.

The esoteric theories and debates over innate intelligence, nurture, you pick the topic, are niceties that add a bit of subtlety to the real world understanding. Perhaps they will, someday, come up with an idea that is really important.

In the meantime, promote the idea of a family with two parents, giving love and care to their kids and making sure they understand how important and valuable a good education is. If that happens, we don't need to worry about school systems or teachers, except at the extremes. That family will make sure that the kids absorb what they need to continue to move forward.

Poverty in America is not the same as poverty in a third world society. A lack of adequate nutrition probably acts adversely on one's IQ, I suspect this in not the case in our country with all of the federal programs available for the poor.

I think the Internet, w all its misinformation, nonsense, destructive information, porn etc can be and is a huge educational tool for those willing to take advantage of it. I work on ships and often make port in Djiboiti, a very poor area. Oft times chief engrs (and chief mates) will give jobs to locals cleaning engine rooms etc and will give letters of recommendation to good workers, paying them excellent wages by local stds (of course the deranged irrational libs will scream "exploitation!" at the top of their lungs claiming the work is hot and dirty (true), and dangerous (can be if the workmen aren't properly watched and guided and you've got to watch for stealing, stowing away and khat (very bad), etc). I later see many of the same guys and others in downtown computer rental shops where computers can be rented very cheaply, some doing their best to gain literacy and knowledge, others wasting their time playing stupid computer games (a little of course ok). The Internet, properly used, can be a hugely beneficial educational tool. Indeed I've made the acquaintance of people in dirt poor places who've gained literacy entirely self taught using the computer (a lot of nonsense re that - everybody knows some English while English speakers are too lazy to learn anything else (I can muddle thru in Spanish).It's inevitable that individual and societal iq will very substantially rise w this kind of double edged sword educational tool at nearly everyone's disposal. I think things are looking up in that regard.

EQ or Emotional Quotient is a measure of your ability to notice and then manage your interior and exterior perceptions of your feelings and then control your reactions. Your mood will always control your ability to resolve problems. EQ, then attitude (how you approach work and study) and right thinking (if your core beliefs are correct) are all more important than IQ. A gifted IQ based on one's genetics is wasted on greed, terror, and pursuit of pleasure in many cases even if the person is from a rich family.

Being poor materially is not the issue as most of our ancestors would be considered poor if compared to the average material standard we have today. It did not matter as they in many cases were happier and more productive than we are today. Poor people do not go hungry in America and have a life style that would be the envy of most in 3rd world nations.

Deficient EQ, attitude and wrong thinking will destroy the gifted IQ. A woman with a very high intelligence in Saudi Arabia and the member of a very wealthy family and one of four wives who is not allowed to go out of the house will never fully develop her potential. She comes from a culture with wrong thinking, a god who hates, a prevalence of intolerant attitudes and a general population with low EQ's . The Saudi's have hugh wealth and high IQ's but there are no major discoveries or new companies or other major contributions to mankind. They export oil and terror.

The very reason for American leadership in the world is not because of wealth but because of a culture that fosters the good EQ, attitude and right thinking. We are not any smarter than others in the world we are just blessed with a place where you are more likely to be given the freedom to fully develop your potential.

Yes indeed Barney it is a mix of genetic, environmental factors and opportunity that result in level of success obtained. There is no purity of one that can be said is the sole factor for achievement. A free society with a market driven economy generally gives the best opportunity for rewarding people at the level of their innate skills and effort. However it is clear because people are different there always will be a stratification of income. Moreover, it is clear some people will be structurally unable to perform and assistance will be required. I know of no conservatives that don't understand this and agree certain levels of public assistance is necessary.

Equally, giving people something for nothing tends to give incentive for more of the same. Liberal social programs have enslaved, culturally destroyed and deeply corrupted the same people they claim to want to free with an addiction to handouts.

There will never a level playing field and the more we try to make everyone equal the more we destroy the system that created the wealth that has allowed our economy to give some many so much for so little.

James, your Darwinian theory could also apply to Northern versus Southern whites in the U.S. when you consider the fact that the British used North America as their 17th & 18th century prison overcrowding solution, shipping off debtors, thieves, murders and any other people who were deemed their society's weakest links. Of course, these people who were sent here as indentured servants (as opposed to slaves), were sent to agricultural states where there was high demand for cheap labor (Georgia was even established as a prison colony by the British). Therefore, if I follow your logic, this group obviously must have been the dregs of England, and by default, intellectually inferior to those who came as free men, then it stands to reason that their descendants (who likely still live in the South) must be less intelligent than their Northern counterparts, many of whom are descended from people who came here by choice, as opposed to by force or coercion.

"*all* sectors of society have increased their average IQ through the Flynn effect."

All sectors have increased, but not equally. Average black IQ has increased more than average white IQ. Average poor IQ has increased more than average wealthy IQ. This is because those on the bottom of society suffer more environmental problems that have been alleviated in recent decades: pollution, lead paint, malnutrition, etc. For whites and the wealthy, however, their environment has fewer ways to be improved on average.

Research has shown that those at the top of society are hitting a limit on their IQ increase. That limit might be eventually increased in the way seen with those on the bottom of society, but so far that isn't the case. I hope we don't hit a limit like that. It would be nice to think that humans can continually progress.

This is why the racial IQ gap is decreasing. In fact, the average black now has a higher IQ than the average white had a half century ago. Those are some powerful environmental forces.

This is shown with IQ tests. All groups have increased average IQs. The Flynn Effect shows that blacks are closing the IQ gap with whites. Even more interesting, blacks already have a higher average IQ than whites had a few generations ago. Of course, there are a lot of problems with IQ testing, not the least that it isn't clear that inherent cognitive ability is being tested.

As someone who has served on two charter school boards--one with students from middle and upper-middle class families and one with kids from low-income/working class families--I can tell you that vouchers and charter schools only work for the kids who's parents are capable and have the means to get their kids into the better schools and to reinforce what their kids are learning at home. In New Orleans where 70% of the public schools are charters, the kids at the traditional public schools are outperforming kids at the charter schools, and we've had several charter schools fail over the past few years because of consistently low test score. Why? All the low performing schools were allowed to become charter schools and even with new management and educational flexibility, the charter schools are still not working for the kids who don't have the social networks, communities and family values that reinforce school effort or encourage them to perform at their maximum levels. This is why the more successful charter schools are ones that have selective admissions and parental involvement requirements--allowing them to filter out for both nature and nurture "shortcomings"

For one explanation of this, read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. The War on Drugs has been disproportionately focused on the poor and on minorities, even though the non-poor and whites are involved more in using and dealing drugs. In particular, whites use more drugs and are more likely to be found with drugs than blacks, but blacks are more likely to be targeted by police for drugs and also more likely to be prosecuted and incarcerated for drugs. Where did all the black fathers go? There is a simple answer to that.

Also, at the same time as the War on Drugs escalated during the 80s and 90s, poverty and unemployment vastly increased in black communities partly because of industrialization and globalization that caused factories to leave urban areas in the US. Poverty and unemployment have created black market economy, not just drugs but also prostitution and working under the table.

George, that's a sufficiently incendiary remark that if any newsworthy person said it, it would be easy to find it reported somewhere. If that person was Tom Bradley and even if it happened decades ago, the right wing blogosphere would still be all over that story.

Dan - you probably came from a "High SES" family. As the says in high SES twin studies, the family and gene factors are the most important.But if you came from a dirt-poor inner-city neighborhood (even with a loving two parent family) and parent who did not speak English and worked 3 jobs just to pay the rent, then maybe that good HS teach would have made a HUGE difference in your life.The point of the article is that environment (like the school experience) makes much more difference to poor kids. This is not about rich or middle class people like us - this is about fixing what we can to give the poor kids a tiny leg up. Good teachers matter more for the poor than anything else we can do. We can't easily fix poverty, we can't fix their parents, we can't easily fix their neighborhoods. But we can find ways to get teh best and brightest teacher to teach the poorest kids! We can pay teachers in the poorest schools more or we can support more Teach for America folks to teach in those schools - or both.talking about fixing the parents is just wasting your breath.We can help the kids do well even if they have challenges in their family or neighborhood. That is what being a teachers is all about. Helping kids!

When those kids get to be adults - they will be better educated and can be better parents and they likely will have better jobs than their parents did. Plus, they will support education more because they will see that it worked for them.

Plus, poverty correlates to higher rates of pollution and environmental toxins. Poor people tend to live in poor neighborhoods that are closer to factories and to live in old houses with lead paint. All of these factors are problematic for the poor in the US.

No, the US will just have to keep growing the size, scope, and reach of government until every citizen is above the median in income, IQ, and any other statistic that government deems important. As long as those who remain below the median and a handful of leftist ideologues above the median continue to vote as they have been, this can continue indefinitely.

Glen, I think I agree with your conceptual thesis except for perhaps two suppositions; one, I'm not comfortable with the expression "wrong thinking" (the parlance needs some rework) and two, our "place" is now facing an environment of ever-shrinking parameters of its freedom, through collectivist governmental intrusions, manipulations, distortions and distribution of entitlements and preferences (both corporate and group).

I think you are largely confusing Australia with the North American colonies. Those "dregs" shipped to Australia did constitute a large fraction of initial Australian settlers, though subsequent migration diluted their numbers greatly.

The ratio of "dregs" shipped to the North American colonies from the UK was not that high. Those who were shipped were from a more homogenous population than found in Africa to start with, and they were not selected in consequece of ease of subjugation (in fact, the opposite, as it was the trouble-makers shipped out). All that woud tend to reduce effect you postulate.

Yet I think there is some truth to your contention. "Po' whites" in the South have a reputation that goes back (by verbal history) a couple of hundred years, and it is not complimentary.

The Flynn effect shows the opposite, Benjamin. The white/black IQ testing gap has remained almost invariant over the past decades because *all* sectors of society have increased their average IQ through the Flynn effect.

The Flynn effect is a good example of the way in which IQ levels can be altered by environment to some degree, but ironically it also illustrates the technical difficulty in closing IQ gaps through environmental change; environmental change tends to float all boats much more than you might think.

The best way to end poverty is by stopping what is being done to create it. Poverty doesn't happen on accident. Find out whose self-interest is served by other people being poor and you'll know the source of the problem. America has decreased poverty in the past, but chose to change public policies and so increased poverty again.

Maybe not. But the memory has been with me for a long time. Another source could be US News and World Report. Another one of Bradley's quotes from that time was, 'Children need to have goals, even if these goals fail to come to fruition, they need to have goals.' Of course this is correct, and whether or not a person is goal oriented is a better indicator of success than an intelligence test is. Being goal oriented depends to some extent on upbringing as well. It might start with, what do you want to be when you grow up? What is the difference between the home where this question is asked of children, and the home where this is never brought up?

Nicole, my source is my memory, going back to the time immediately following the retirement of Tom Bradley as mayor of Los Angeles. Pre-internet. I read Time magazine, so that could have been the source. But the comment was provocative enough to be etched in my memory. I also know, my memory is less than perfect.

Those not "civilized" and indoctrinated in how and why to learn by that time rarely rise above the morass. Coercion, and attractive "pleasures of the moment" can and do motivate them to exert themselves, but cannot make them think. And that places severe constraints on what can be accomplished from then on.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.